Chapter Eight Energy and Civilization: Patterns of Consumption Read the prompt "What's Your Take?" . "
The price of gasoline is a hot topic.
Although Americans pay less than half as much as people who live in other economically developed countries, many feel that U.S. prices are too high.
Other people feel that increasing the price of gasoline is necessary to stimulate changes in the way Americans use energy.
We will decide as a group on an interview protocol on Friday Jan 6th.
Interview 5 other individuals using this topic.
Analyse your responses and publish your interview results here.
Do you see patterns (age, socioeconomic factors, nationality, residence). What did you learn?
Max: Of the five people I interviewed (Parent, Neighbor, Classmates) Every person responded that would not pay more for gas, even though American prices are lower, and that the price increase will stimulate energy usage changes. The reason for most was that commuting is such a large part of their lives, and driving is a necessity, not something they can live doing less of. An argument was it is the job of the government and corporations to find alternative ways to reduce our energy dependence and consumption. I would expect people who don't do much driving to be willing to pay more for gas, and many students seem to think higher prices will lead to the development of more fuel efficient cars and alternative energy sources.
Mohan: My interviews went the opposite of Max's. Out of the five people that i interviewed everyone said that they would gladly pay more money it it meant it would stimulate changes in the way Americans use energy. Some points that were discussed was the fact that people aren't stimulated to do something unless they are directly impacted. Today people have the choice to buy a more fuel efficient car but choose not to because they may not be impacted by the price of gas. However if the price of gas were to double or even triple, people might be more inclined with getting a more fuel efficient car or commuting to their location in a more energy efficient way (car pooling, biking etc). Another point that was made was the fact that it wouldn't only stimulate people but also the car companies who would jump on the fact that people want more fuel efficient cars and they would invest more in making cars that the people want. The adults that I interviewed seemed to have the same opinions as the students that I interviewed.
thanks to Max & Mohan for getting the discussion started ... let's get a few more entries.
Alex: Four out of the five people I interviewed said that they would be willing to pay more for gas if it helped the environment. Many took into account the fact that we Americans already pay a lot less for gas than other countries, and that they believe it would make a big difference if the price change actually took place. All four of the people who said yes said that they support the environmental efforts, and that a increased gas price could help people and the nation to begin to take initiatives that they speak of doing but don't act on, like driving less or developing more local transportation options. The one interviewee that said no to paying more for gas said he believes that the environmental hype is unnecessary, and that the idea of global warming is "bogus".
Nick: All five of the people I interviewed said that they would be willing to spend more money on gas if it meant less of an impact on the environment. Though, it is important to note that their opinions changed when the increase was over a certain amount. All five people said they'd be willing to pay 4 dollars per gallon, but only two said that they would be willing to pay the same amount as the average of the UK, which is $5.79 in USD. The two people who were willing to pay the UK average were both college freshmen. The other three people interviewed were 26 or older. They all seemed to agree that they would be willing to deal with the increase in prices to lessen our environmental impact, but they all made note that they'd rather see cars powered efficiently by alternate energy sources than have to see increases of gas prices in the coming years. Watch the nine minute video it is an entertaining and quick overview of energy use. In the space below pull out one political or scientific point in the movie and place int as a bullet in the space below. If you are the first to do this just do it ... if you are the second place your topic in the correct order above or below the last entry. Continue this process till all students have made postings! Kelcie: From all the animals dying in the ocean, the pressure cooked the sediments and animals that were laid to rest at the bottom of the ocean. After millions and millions of years it caused hydrocarbon.
Catie: John D. Rockefeller created the company Standard Oil, which controlled 90% of refineries. Standard Oil was the first multinational corporation.
Max: A scientific point made by this video is that inexhaustible energy does not exist. Whatever means we use to power any technology is a limited resource whether it seems that way or not, and all means of energy come with a price. Freddie: At the end of the clip, he happily talks about the future where we will attain and use energy that has always been around us, sun, water, wind, heat from the Earth's core, and how in this bright future, energy will respect the Earth we have tarnished.
Watch brief video of Jimmy Carter our last one term president. I remember watching this speech. I was in college studying environmental science. I often wonder how our present might have been very different if the country had been ready to hear his message of conservation. Please watch the video and then respond. Logan: Jimmy Carter depicts that the dependency on Foreign resources, especially oil, triggered the start of the economic crisis in the United States during his presidency. The long wait for gasoline and high food prices are perfect examples. He therefore states that the U.S must use its resources more wisely because the future may not allow the country to look beyond its own borders for necessary resources. Freddie: If this speech were taken and spoken today, no one would flinch. We are having the same problems as they were in 1977, but today we use much more foreign oil than we did in '77. If this dependence on foreign oil, and other resources, it is more evident that some needs to be done now, not in another 30 years. If I may, my opinion on the question above, raising the oil prices would be overall beneficial, though not convenient, which is what America likes. People would be economically forced to not drive big SUV's and trucks, and it would decrease the amount of oil we used as a nation. A large tax on oil would also be helpful for getting our nation out of debt. Everything President Carter said in that speech is directly translatable to today, but should be taken even more seriously than in 1977.
Go to the following site sponsored by Chevron Energyville game . After playing the game state what you think the energy company wants to accomplish with this site.
Kelcie: Energyville represents an average industrialised global city, with population and energy demands, uses and costs. I think the energy company wants to show people what real world decisions have to be made in order to meet the changing environment. This will allow players to gain an understanding of what is happening in the world around us.
Catie: I also think that this game's goal was to teach people about the different methods of producing energy and how these methods differ economically, and with their impact on the environment. For example, coal was really cheap, but it had a high impact on the environment, while solar power was beneficial to the environment, but it was very expensive.
I have been looking for more resources for you and was very impressed with the following webpage http://www.eoearth.org/ I would like to have you all visit the site follow the links to energy resources, find something that:
interests you
you do not know yet
read it
post information below
Nick: Solar Power.
In examining the debate over which alternate energy source humankind should pursue, I had always felt solar power hadn't been discussed much, but wasn't sure why. After reading this article, I had learned that solar energy has a long way to go before it can be more heavily relied on to produce energy. The creation of solar energy panels requires the mining, and production of rare metals, such as Gallium and Cadmium. Some of these metals cause toxic emissions, as cadmium does. Solar energy is more popular in areas closer to the equator, as their use in those areas maximizes sun exposure. A leader in solar energy production in recent years has been Spain. It is thought that China could greatly benefit from further production of Solar panels, due to the nature of its geography and the amount of average sunlight it receives annually.
Max: China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Slowly and surely, China is becoming the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. China has officially taken the point of view that the present concentrations of greenhouse gases have been mainly produced by developed countries, and that the responsibility of the developing countries, hence, is very limited. Yet China has failed to take national measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The article I read mentions a major problem with this inevitable climate change in China. Harbors at the Yangtze and Pearl River Deltas, two of China's largest sources of economy, will be threatened in the near future by changes in preciptation. What got me thinking was: How will inevitable climate change in America affect outr economic sources?
Catie: Tarballs:
When scrolling through some articles, I came across the article titled "Tarballs" and was interested because I had never heard the term before. Tarballs are blobs of petroleum that have been weathered after floating in the ocean. When there is an oil spill, oil spreads into a thin slick, and overtime, the properties of the oil begin to change. Some oil evaporates, while much of it is left behind. This oil can be mixed with water to form an emulsion, which is thicker and stickier, and can be stretch and tore into oil patches into smaller pieces. These small pieces are called tarballs. They're about the size of a coin, and are hard on the outside, and soft on the inside. They have the ability to travel hundreds of miles. These tarballs affect marine life and have been found on beaches. Scientists are still unsure of how to get rid of tarballs and solve the problem completely.
Read the prompt "What's Your Take?" . "
Max: Of the five people I interviewed (Parent, Neighbor, Classmates) Every person responded that would not pay more for gas, even though American prices are lower, and that the price increase will stimulate energy usage changes. The reason for most was that commuting is such a large part of their lives, and driving is a necessity, not something they can live doing less of. An argument was it is the job of the government and corporations to find alternative ways to reduce our energy dependence and consumption. I would expect people who don't do much driving to be willing to pay more for gas, and many students seem to think higher prices will lead to the development of more fuel efficient cars and alternative energy sources.
Mohan: My interviews went the opposite of Max's. Out of the five people that i interviewed everyone said that they would gladly pay more money it it meant it would stimulate changes in the way Americans use energy. Some points that were discussed was the fact that people aren't stimulated to do something unless they are directly impacted. Today people have the choice to buy a more fuel efficient car but choose not to because they may not be impacted by the price of gas. However if the price of gas were to double or even triple, people might be more inclined with getting a more fuel efficient car or commuting to their location in a more energy efficient way (car pooling, biking etc). Another point that was made was the fact that it wouldn't only stimulate people but also the car companies who would jump on the fact that people want more fuel efficient cars and they would invest more in making cars that the people want. The adults that I interviewed seemed to have the same opinions as the students that I interviewed.
thanks to Max & Mohan for getting the discussion started ... let's get a few more entries.
Alex: Four out of the five people I interviewed said that they would be willing to pay more for gas if it helped the environment. Many took into account the fact that we Americans already pay a lot less for gas than other countries, and that they believe it would make a big difference if the price change actually took place. All four of the people who said yes said that they support the environmental efforts, and that a increased gas price could help people and the nation to begin to take initiatives that they speak of doing but don't act on, like driving less or developing more local transportation options. The one interviewee that said no to paying more for gas said he believes that the environmental hype is unnecessary, and that the idea of global warming is "bogus".
Nick: All five of the people I interviewed said that they would be willing to spend more money on gas if it meant less of an impact on the environment. Though, it is important to note that their opinions changed when the increase was over a certain amount. All five people said they'd be willing to pay 4 dollars per gallon, but only two said that they would be willing to pay the same amount as the average of the UK, which is $5.79 in USD. The two people who were willing to pay the UK average were both college freshmen. The other three people interviewed were 26 or older. They all seemed to agree that they would be willing to deal with the increase in prices to lessen our environmental impact, but they all made note that they'd rather see cars powered efficiently by alternate energy sources than have to see increases of gas prices in the coming years.
Watch the nine minute video it is an entertaining and quick overview of energy use. In the space below pull out one political or scientific point in the movie and place int as a bullet in the space below. If you are the first to do this just do it ... if you are the second place your topic in the correct order above or below the last entry. Continue this process till all students have made postings!
Kelcie: From all the animals dying in the ocean, the pressure cooked the sediments and animals that were laid to rest at the bottom of the ocean. After millions and millions of years it caused hydrocarbon.
Catie: John D. Rockefeller created the company Standard Oil, which controlled 90% of refineries. Standard Oil was the first multinational corporation.
Max: A scientific point made by this video is that inexhaustible energy does not exist. Whatever means we use to power any technology is a limited resource whether it seems that way or not, and all means of energy come with a price.
Freddie: At the end of the clip, he happily talks about the future where we will attain and use energy that has always been around us, sun, water, wind, heat from the Earth's core, and how in this bright future, energy will respect the Earth we have tarnished.
Watch brief video of Jimmy Carter our last one term president. I remember
watching this speech. I was in college studying environmental science.
I often wonder how our present might have been very different if the
country had been ready to hear his message of conservation. Please watch the
video and then respond.
Logan: Jimmy Carter depicts that the dependency on Foreign resources, especially oil, triggered the start of the economic crisis in the United States during his presidency. The long wait for gasoline and high food prices are perfect examples. He therefore states that the U.S must use its resources more wisely because the future may not allow the country to look beyond its own borders for necessary resources.
Freddie: If this speech were taken and spoken today, no one would flinch. We are having the same problems as they were in 1977, but today we use much more foreign oil than we did in '77. If this dependence on foreign oil, and other resources, it is more evident that some needs to be done now, not in another 30 years. If I may, my opinion on the question above, raising the oil prices would be overall beneficial, though not convenient, which is what America likes. People would be economically forced to not drive big SUV's and trucks, and it would decrease the amount of oil we used as a nation. A large tax on oil would also be helpful for getting our nation out of debt. Everything President Carter said in that speech is directly translatable to today, but should be taken even more seriously than in 1977.
Go to the following site sponsored by Chevron Energyville game . After playing the game state what you think the energy company wants to accomplish with this site.
Kelcie: Energyville represents an average industrialised global city, with population and energy demands, uses and costs. I think the energy company wants to show people what real world decisions have to be made in order to meet the changing environment. This will allow players to gain an understanding of what is happening in the world around us.
Catie: I also think that this game's goal was to teach people about the different methods of producing energy and how these methods differ economically, and with their impact on the environment. For example, coal was really cheap, but it had a high impact on the environment, while solar power was beneficial to the environment, but it was very expensive.
I have been looking for more resources for you and was very impressed with the following webpage
http://www.eoearth.org/ I would like to have you all visit the site follow the links to energy resources, find something that:
Nick: Solar Power.
In examining the debate over which alternate energy source humankind should pursue, I had always felt solar power hadn't been discussed much, but wasn't sure why. After reading this article, I had learned that solar energy has a long way to go before it can be more heavily relied on to produce energy. The creation of solar energy panels requires the mining, and production of rare metals, such as Gallium and Cadmium. Some of these metals cause toxic emissions, as cadmium does. Solar energy is more popular in areas closer to the equator, as their use in those areas maximizes sun exposure. A leader in solar energy production in recent years has been Spain. It is thought that China could greatly benefit from further production of Solar panels, due to the nature of its geography and the amount of average sunlight it receives annually.
Max: China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Slowly and surely, China is becoming the world's largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. China has officially taken the point of view that the present concentrations of greenhouse gases have been mainly produced by developed countries, and that the responsibility of the developing countries, hence, is very limited. Yet China has failed to take national measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The article I read mentions a major problem with this inevitable climate change in China. Harbors at the Yangtze and Pearl River Deltas, two of China's largest sources of economy, will be threatened in the near future by changes in preciptation. What got me thinking was: How will inevitable climate change in America affect outr economic sources?
Catie: Tarballs:
When scrolling through some articles, I came across the article titled "Tarballs" and was interested because I had never heard the term before. Tarballs are blobs of petroleum that have been weathered after floating in the ocean. When there is an oil spill, oil spreads into a thin slick, and overtime, the properties of the oil begin to change. Some oil evaporates, while much of it is left behind. This oil can be mixed with water to form an emulsion, which is thicker and stickier, and can be stretch and tore into oil patches into smaller pieces. These small pieces are called tarballs. They're about the size of a coin, and are hard on the outside, and soft on the inside. They have the ability to travel hundreds of miles. These tarballs affect marine life and have been found on beaches. Scientists are still unsure of how to get rid of tarballs and solve the problem completely.